Brigham Young University
BYU ScholarsArchive
All Theses and Dissertations
2010-12-02
Bullying Trends and Reporting Preferences Among
an Urban, Suburban, and Rural School
Noemi E. Olsen
Brigham Young University - Provo
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd
Part of the Counseling Psychology Commons, and the Special Education and Teaching
Commons
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation
Olsen, Noemi E., "Bullying Trends and Reporting Preferences Among an Urban, Suburban, and Rural School" (2010). All Theses and
Dissertations. Paper 2418.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations by an
authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Bullying Trends and Reporting Preferences Among an Urban,
Suburban, and Rural School
Noemi E. Olsen
A thesis submitted to the faculty of
Brigham Young University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Educational Specialist
Betty Ashbaker, Chair
Lane Fischer
Michelle Marchant
Department of Counseling Psychology and Special Education
Brigham Young University
December 2010
Copyright © 2010 Noemi E. Olsen
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
BULLYING TRENDS AND REPORTING PREFERENCES AMONG AN URBAN,
SUBURBAN, AND RURAL SCHOOL
Noemi E. Olsen
Department of Counseling Psychology and Special Education
Educational Specialist in School Psychology
Every student has the right to a safe learning environment, yet so many students have been
targets of or witnesses of bullying incidents. In spite of school administration efforts to create
effective reporting systems and to implement anti-bullying programs, many students remain
silent victims. The present study analyzes data collected from a School Safety Survey through
SchoolTipline. This data was used to determine the bullying trends, reporting trends, and
reporting preferences of 562 7th and 8th grade students at an urban, suburban, and rural school.
The results of this study indicate that bullying continues to be a prevalent issue that students
face, but a great majority still fail to report these bullying incidents to school personnel. The
results also indicate that there are significant differences in regard to bullying among the urban,
suburban, and rural schools, which warrant further research.
Keywords: physical bullying, verbal bullying, urban school, suburban school, rural school
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Lane Fischer and Dr. Michelle
Marchant for your feedback and support, as well as my chair, Dr. Betty Ashbaker, for giving me
the opportunity to work on this research project. Secondly, I would like to thank Justin Bergener
for creating SchoolTipline and allowing the BYU research team to use the Safe School Survey
for this study. Thank you to Marvi and Maren who helped me collect and analyze the data.
I would also like to thank my friends and family for their undying support and
encouragement. Your love and assistance has helped me through many late nights. Thank you for
your understanding and devotion.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...………….……………………….……………………………………………... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...…………….……………..………………………………….…... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..…………...……………………………………………………..… iv
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………..….… vi
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Statement of Problem and Purpose…………………………………………………………. 3
Research Questions……………………………………………………………………….… 5
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE…………………………………………………………….. 6
Current Literature ...………………………………………………………………………... 6
Bullying ..………………………………………………………………………..…..… 6
Trends of Bullying ......……………………………………………………….……. 7
Negative Effects .......……………………………………………………………..... 8
Reporting .................…………………………………………………………………... 8
Barriers of Reporting .………………………………………………………....….. 9
Methods of Reporting ...……………………………………………………………. 10
Overcoming Barriers ...………………………………………………………...…... 12
Geography ..………………………………………………………………………….… 13
Comparative Trends ......…………………………………………………………... 15
Isolated School Trends……………………………………………………………… 16
Urban .......…………………………………………………………………….... 17
Suburban ......…………………………………………………………………... 19
Rural ......……………………………………………………………………..... 22
Current Limitations .......………………………………………………………………….... 23
METHOD ......…………………………………………………………………………………. 25
Participants ......……………………………………………………………………………. 25
Measures .........……………………………………………………………………………. 27
Procedures and Data Collection…………………………………………………………..... 27
RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………………….… 29
Participants………………………………………………………………………………..... 29
Reliability…………………………………………………………………………….…...... 30
Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..... 32
Bullying Trends………………………………………………………………………… 33
Reporting Trends……………………………………………………………………….. 41
Reporting Preferences………………………………………………………………….. 46
DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
Findings…………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
Bullying Trends………………………………………………………………………… 49
Reporting Trends……………………………………………………………………….. 50
Reporting Preferences ..........…………………………………………………………... 51
Limitations . ……………………………………………………………………………….. 52
Future Directions .…………………………………………………………………………. 53
Implications for Practice ...……………………………………………………………….... 54
Conclusion ..........………………………………………………………………………….. 57
REFERENCES ...……………………………………………………………………………..... 68
v
APPENDIX A – Geographic Definitions ……………………………………………………....
APPENDIX B – Survey………………………………………………………………………...
APPENDIX C – Survey in Spanish………………………………………………………..……
APPENDIX D – Survey Instructions…………………………………………………………...
65
66
70
74
viv
LIST OF TABLES
1. Reliability of student responses from Time 1 to Time 2
31
2. Frequencies of responses when students were asked how often they were verbally
bullied in the last two months
33
3. Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning how often they had
been verbally bullied
34
4. Frequencies of responses when students were asked how often they were physically
bullied in the last two months
36
5. Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning how often they had
been physically bullied
36
6. Frequencies of responses when students were asked where they were bullied
37
7. Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning where they were
bullied
39
8. Frequencies of responses when students were asked when they were bullied
40
9. Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning when they were
bullied
40
10. Frequencies of responses when students were asked who they reported to when they were
bullied
41
11. Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning who they reported to
when they were bullied
42
12. Frequencies of responses when students were asked who they reported to when they saw
someone else being bullied
43
13. Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning who they reported to
when they saw someone else being bullied
44
14. Frequencies of responses when students were asked if they would report if it was
anonymous
45
15. Frequencies of responses when students were asked who how they would prefer to report
bullying
46
16. Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning how would prefer to
report
46
17. Frequencies of responses when students were asked if they would use the SchoolTipline
website to anonymously report bullying incidents
46
18. Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning if students would use
the SchoolTipline website to anonymously report bullying incidents
47
1
Introduction
Over the past few years, a lot of emphasis has been placed on school violence, and how
to prevent this violence before it happens. With school shootings, such as those at Columbine
and Virginia Tech, being broadcast on television, teachers and students are much more worried
about maintaining a good school climate and keeping students and faculty safe (Perone, 1998;
Kitsantas, 2004). Yet even the most effective administrators, parents, and teachers cannot
address negative school incidents if they do not know about them. Many students are reluctant
to report such incidents, especially those in middle school and high school. There are many
reasons students give as to why they wouldn’t report incidents of school violence, such as feeling
uncomfortable, and feeling that it is not their responsibility to report (United States Department
of Education, 1998).
When looking at ways to improve programs that promote student safety, the need for
increased student reporting should be foremost, especially since school boards find that “the
perennial challenge of attempting to increase the levels of pupils’ reporting of bullying to
teachers and parents remains a challenge” (O’Moore & Minton, 2005). It does not matter if there
are programs implemented in the schools if the students are not taking an active role in the
implementation. Within the framework of the current program, school incidents were still not
being resolved. If students do not make use of the policy, awareness is irrelevant. This would
require students to increase the amount of reporting, either as a participant or as a witness of
school incidents.
There are several factors affecting a student’s likelihood of using an anti-bullying
program in his/her school. Levels of student reporting are unlikely to increase until schools
create an anti-bullying environment. One study explored the conditions under which students are
2
most likely to report negative peer experiences. Two factors were whether or not the student
believed his or her claim would be dealt with and the perceived tolerance toward bullying.
Unnever and Cornell (2004) found that many students feared retaliation if they reported,
especially if they felt that school authorities were ineffective in preventing or intervening
bullying problems. Indeed, victims will not report unless they are sure their problem will be
handled without an increase in bullying. For the victim, being ignored when a call for help has
been made, as well as experiencing an increasing in the bullying may lead to a feeling of
hopelessness. Instead, the students will be more likely to try to cope with the violence, or see it
as normal behavior. These issues may then seem like minor incidents that can be overlooked to
avoid social rejection and/or retaliation caused by a report to a principal, teacher, or parent.
In efforts to overcome the apprehensions that students may have, as well as satisfying the
need to protect from retaliation, several groups have considered possibilities for anonymous
reporting such as 24-hour phone hotlines or courtesy “contact telephones” for each school to be
available during certain hours of the day (Olweus, 1993). While this method may help students
feel safer when reporting, it may not be as effective because of the funding it would require to
staff, and the problems that may arise when trying to use the reports to aid the students affected.
Other groups, such as Tempus Software Ltd. (n.d.) are starting to explore text messaging and
online reporting. Another option is to report anonymously to school administrators through
emails using a company known as SchoolSpan, Inc. (n.d.) A Maryland school district offered an
online bullying and harassment survey and found that 74% of students in grades 4-10 completed
the survey (Grasmick, 2006). In this technologically perceptive generation, an online approach
may be the best way to reach students about bullying.
3
SchoolTipline is an online reporting service that is being made available at over 40
schools nationwide. Last year, SchoolTipline was made available to Dixon Middle School in
Provo, UT, where a focus group was conducted by researchers at Brigham Young University.
The original pilot study began in 2006 at Dixon Middle School, a local suburban school. The
purpose of this study was to collect information from middle school students regarding their
willingness to use an online incident reporting system called SchoolTipline. This online system
allows students, teachers, and parents to report incidents of school violence, such as bullying and
harassment, with the option of anonymity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Researchers conducted
a focus group with 21 7th and 8th grade students at the pilot school using three questionnaires.
Based on the students’ feedback from the focus group, data were found supporting the
hypothesis that students will prefer an online system to traditional reporting methods.
Statement of Problem and Purpose
Exposure to violence in the schools and the surrounding areas “may reduce the quality of
teaching, disrupt school classroom discipline, and limit teachers’ availability to students before
or after the school day, [as well as] reduce students’ motivation to attend school, willingness to
participate in extracurricular activities, and capacity to attend to and care about academic
matters” (Lorian, 1998, p. 295). When there are so many incidents of violence in schools, one
may wonder what can be done to ameliorate the situation. One aspect of school violence that
requires attention because of its negative short- and long-term effects is bullying.
Even when school personnel try to intervene and prevent bullying from occurring in their
schools, their efforts cannot be effective if they do not know when, where, or by whom the
incidents are occurring. Many times school administrators are left in the dark because those who
know about the bullying incidents are reluctant to report, especially those students in middle
4
school and high school. While limited resources in personnel or funds may create difficulties in
preventing bullying, the lack of student reporting is often the most persistent limitation to even
the best-laid programs.
There have been different kinds of reporting systems that have been developed recently,
using the telephone and the internet. Many of these programs also have factors, such as the cost
to run the program and availability, which decrease its effectiveness in the schools. Research
with SchoolTipline has shown that at a Suburban middle school, a majority of the students would
feel comfortable using this website as a way to anonymously report incidents of bullying at their
school. Unfortunately, a disadvantage of using a focus group method in a study is that the results
cannot be generalized to other populations, due to the small number of participants (Marczak &
Sewell, n.d.). Although information that was gathered from the focus group may give us
valuable information about the students in that suburban middle school, it is hard to know if
those results could be generalized to other populations (such as urban or rural school students).
The purpose of the Safe Schools survey, which was information source used in this study,
was used to determine students’ perceptions of safety at their school and to gain students’ views
on bullying in their school and their preferences or methods of reporting bulling. The purpose
was to analyze the collected data for trends, types, and frequency of reports from Mount Ogden
Middle School, Lehi Junior High School, and North Sanpete Middle School. In order to see if
the results from the pilot study at the suburban school can be generalized to other student
populations, these three schools were chosen to represent the three different geographic
demographics (a) urban, (b) suburban, and (c) rural, respectively. It is hoped that the online
reporting system and surveys can be used in further research in order to assess the impact and
effect that implementing the SchoolTipline anonymous reporting system can have on the
5
frequency of bullying in middle schools, as well as the school climate. It is also intended that
this information will be shared with the administrators of these schools to aid them in
determining where, how, and when bullying takes place in and around their schools, so that they
can make any appropriate interventions.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to find answers to four research questions:
1) How often does verbal and physical bullying occur?
2) Where and when does this bullying occur?
3) Whom do students report to and how would students prefer to report bullying that they
experience or observe?
4) Are there any significant differences among the three schools’ responses for questions
1-3?
6
Review of the Literature
To determine how this study will add to the current literature, an analysis of this must be
explored. This exploration of current research has shown that there is a widespread amount of
literature on bullying trends and traditional methods of reporting, but there is a sparse amount of
literature on non-traditional methods, and research evaluating the effect of geography on
bullying and reporting trends.
Current Literature
Since part of this survey addresses bullying trends of the 7th and 8th grade students, a
discussion of what bullying is, as well as the prevalence rates of verbal and physical bullying and
other bullying trends was included. In addition, research on barriers to reporting, reporting
preferences, and the efficacy of common anti-bullying programs are also explored. Finally,
studies addressing urban, suburban, and rural schools trends, both in comparison and isolation,
was included.
Bullying. Bullying is not just playing around or an example of “kids will be kids.” The
definition of bullying has generally been agreed upon as the one provided by Dan Olweus, a
pioneer in bullying research (1993):
A student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over
time, to negative action on the part of one or more other students…. In order to use the
term bullying, there should be an imbalance in strength (an asymmetric power
relationship): The student who is exposed to the negative actions has difficulty defending
him/herself and is somewhat helpless against the student or students who harass. (pp. 910)
7
In addition to providing a definition for bullying, many people have also identified different
kinds of bullying: verbal, physical, relational, cyber, direct/indirect, etc. The National School
Safety Center has provided examples of direct bullying. Some examples include hitting,
tripping, shoving, pinching, excessive tickling; verbal threats, name calling, racial slurs, insults;
demanding money, property, service; and stabbing, choking, burning and shooting). They have
also included examples of indirect bullying. A few of these examples include rejecting,
excluding, isolating; ranking or rating, humiliating; manipulating friends and relationships;
writing hurtful or threatening e-mails and posting on web sites; and blackmailing, terrorizing,
and proposing dangerous dares (Quiroz, Arnette, & Stephens, 2006). This study focuses just on
verbal and physical bullying.
Trends of bullying. There have been several large-scale studies that have been done to
quantify just how prevalent bullying is in schools. A study by Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan,
Simons-Morton, and Scheidt (2001) found that almost a third (29.9%) of their sample (15,000
U.S. junior high and high school students) reported moderate to frequent involvement in
bullying. The involvement included those who were the bully, the victim, or fell into both
categories (a “bully-victim”). Another study focused solely on those who were considered the
victims of bullying. In this study conducted by the School Crime Supplement to the National
Crime Victimization Survey (2001), researchers found that about 14% of the participants taking
the survey reported being the victims of bullying within the last six months (DeVoe &
Kaffenberger, 2005).
Not surprisingly, bullying often occurs where and when there is less adult supervision.
This is most likely to take place on the playground (for elementary school children), in the
classroom (when the teacher is not present), in the lunchroom, and in the hallways. This may
8
also include in and around the school bathrooms (Olweus, 1993; Rapp-Paglicci, Dulmus,
Sowers, & Theriot, 2004). Of course, where bullying occurs may be affected by the school
(elementary vs. secondary), or on the kinds of bullying it is (indirect vs. direct).
One study states that possible reasons for bullying in certain locations has to do with territoriality
and places in the schools that are considered to be undefined public space (spaces in the schools
that may not be seen as anyone’s responsibility to monitor or maintain), such as bathrooms,
hallways, and playgrounds. These areas tend to be more violence-prone during times when they
are highly frequented (before/after school, in between classes, during recess, etc.). This study
also found that subcontexts perceived as crowded, and where “smaller” students interacted with
“bigger” students (stairwells, hallways) were considered unsafe places. In addition, middle
school students identified a greater number of unsafe places than elementary school students
(Astor, Meyer, & Pitner, 2001).
Negative effects. There are often both short-term and long-term negative effects for the
target as well as for the bully. Some of these effects may include problems in the areas of
physical health, emotional adjustment, academic problems, peer relationships, and even alcohol
use (Nansel et al, 2004). Other more serious long-term effects for bullies include higher risk for
criminal behavior, and increased aggression toward spouse and children, while targets may be at
higher risk for depression, lower self-esteem, and more interpersonal problems than peers who
were neither bullies nor targets (Olweus & Limber, 1999; Smokowki & Kopasz, 2005).
Reporting. In order for school violence prevention to be more effective, the students
who know what is happening must place the responsibility upon their shoulders to report (Stone
& Isaacs, 2002). Unfortunately, over one-third of students do not report incidents of bullying to
school personnel because they are afraid of retaliation, lack reporting-skills, and feel that
9
teachers and administrators do nothing to prevent bullying from happening (Batsche & Knoff,
1993; Oliver 1994). Students are more likely to take an active role in keeping their school safe
when they feel a sense of ownership within their school (Barras & Lyman, 2000). If the students
are not actively involved in the bullying incidents, they are often witnesses of it happening,
oftentimes in areas where there is less adult supervision. In so many cases, students have known
ahead of time that acts of school violence, such as bullying, were going to occur, and yet have
not told any adults. Some reasons why students failed to report impending school violence
include peer pressure, fear of retaliation, and a lack of understanding their role in keeping their
school safe. (Stone & Isaacs, 2002). In order to increase the amount of student reporting, efforts
must be taken to improve student-administration relations and to help students feel greater
responsibility towards keeping their school safe.
Barriers of reporting. In order for a student to take the chance of reporting, he/she needs
to trust the administrators. One study by Unnever and Cornell (2004) investigated what would
encourage students to report negative peer experiences. Two factors from the study included
whether or not the student believed his or her claim would actually be dealt with, and the
perceived tolerance toward bullying. In fact, victims may have feared retaliation because many
of the students believed that authorities don’t really intervene when bullying does occur. In
order for students to take the risk of reporting, they must believe that the administrators care
about them and the school, and are willing to do something about the situation. This can be
accomplished by having administrators respond effectively to students’ reports of bullying
incidents.
When students perceive that school administrators are being proactive in working to
decrease bullying, and are aware of what their options are to report, they will be more likely to
10
do so. However, there are some “proactive” measures that are not (as perceived by students as
being) effective. Despite the lack of evidence demonstrating effectiveness, many schools combat
bullying problems by increasing security. As explained by Kohn (2004), we cannot expect that
schools will be safer because of the numerous supervised cameras or metal detectors being
installed. Instead, measures need to be taken to improve human relations (Noguera as cited in
Kohn, 2004). In order to increase communication with students, administrators must first show
that they care for them as individuals, which can be done by “building a system that includes
respecting and carefully handling students’ confidences” (Stone & Isaacs, 2002, p. 55). It is
impossible for administrators to be everywhere at every moment and so they will not see every
incidence of bullying that takes place. However, they will not have to be everywhere if they
create a system allowing positive and effective two-way communication, thereby creating a
sense of trust with the students and increasing rates of reporting. One way to encourage this
communication is by providing anonymity and confidentiality.
Even when students knew about incidents of bullying, they failed to report because of
peer pressure and fear of retaliation. In order for students to report, they must feel a certain level
of safety (Stone & Isaacs, 2002). This safety is often felt when a level of anonymity is provided,
allowing students to report without feeling endangered physically or socially due to retaliation.
The hope is that students will be more likely to report bullying incidents they either experience
or witness, which may lead to a decrease in bullying. In addition, if anonymous reporting makes
students more willing to report, then administrators can be more aware of bullying issues in their
school and be more effective when intervening.
Methods of reporting. Traditional methods of reporting can be defined as written or
verbal reports of an incident made by a student to the school administrators, counselors, or
11
teachers. Many times students do not have many options when it comes to reporting bullying
incidents. When reporting involves personal interaction and a lack of anonymity, many students
would rather not report, leaving the incident unresolved. One reason traditional reporting
methods are mainly used in schools is due to a lack of research in the effectiveness of alternate
reporting methods (Juvonen & Graham, 2004). Many schools continue to use traditional ways of
reporting, even when it is not as effective, because they have not been exposed to other forms of
reporting. Other forms of traditional methods for handling bullying include metal detectors,
training faculty, school officers, zero tolerance, and weapons hotlines, which have shown to have
no long-term affects for bullying prevention (Johnson & Johnson 1995). These traditional
reporting methods are part of a school’s whole bullying prevention and intervention program.
Clearly, further research needs to be done regarding alternative methods, and schools need to be
made aware of effective policies.
In addition to using traditional methods of reporting, some schools are now using more
non-traditional methods of reporting. These non-traditional methods often use different forms of
technology to report bullying incidents. Two non-traditional methods of reporting use
telephones. A phone line has been set up in the United Kingdom to increase access for students,
while providing a sense of anonymity (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children, n.d.). Another method, Bully Text, is using text messaging to report bullying from
quickly and effectively (Tempus Software Ltd, n.d.). Many of these new non-traditional
methods of reporting overcome problems with anonymity and accessibility.
On the other hand, these methods also have other aspects which may prevent them from
being truly accessible and appealing for students and administrators to use in a local, school
setting. A phone line requires resources, funds, and personnel that may make this method
12
difficult for some schools to implement, and some students in smaller schools may still fear that
someone would recognize their voices when reporting. Another potential problem that the
program Bully Text may have is the inefficiency of one person, such as the principal or
counselor who receives all of the texts. Although there are many aspects of non-traditional
reporting that can be beneficial to both victims of bullying for reporting purposes, as well as to
school administrators in dealing with bullying, there is not a lot of research that has been done on
just how effective non-traditional anti-bullying programs are. More research needs to be done to
determine the true effectiveness of non-traditional methods.
Even though non-traditional methods have not been tried and tested, research has been
conducted regarding what elements make a successful prevention/intervention program. In a
study conducted internationally, Carney and Merrell found a common fault in current antibullying programs. “What they all lack is an evaluative/continuous feedback component to
gauge program effectiveness and maintain awareness and motivation.” These researchers called
for a program involving the schools, parents, and children along with “permanent and allinclusive intervention/prevention” (p. 380). Their research showed that in order “to make a
substantive difference, long-term commitment to promotion of a positive environment is crucial,
as are data-based accountability measures which gauge the effectiveness of intervention and
suggest modifications as they are needed” (Carney & Merrell, 2001). Traditional methods and
new non-traditional methods as mentioned previously lack either a positive environment or
efficiency and organization.
Overcoming barriers. Successful intervention programs are those, which combine
parent, student, and administrative awareness and evaluation. With everyone involved in a
databased system, an anti-bullying environment will be created where all can feel confident and
13
comfortable reporting incidents. SchoolTipline is an exploration of another non-traditional
method that includes many of the features laid out by Carney and Merrell (2001). Students can
access this system online, 24 hours a day. Their report is sent immediately and directly to school
authorities. This provides a method for administrators and students to communicate and give
each other “continuous feedback” about the bullying conditions in their school. SchoolTipline is
easily implemented into schools and, with the proper advertising, all students can be aware of the
program and have the option of reporting. This program encourages students to be more aware
of the bullying that occurs in the schools and allows the students to report these incidents with
the comfort of anonymity. Students who report can also feel a stronger sense of ownership
because they have the option of tracking their report and can follow-up on how it is being
handled by the school administration.
A focus group had already been conducted with 21 7th and 8th grade students in a
suburban middle school in Utah. The purpose of that study was to gain a better understanding of
what students’ responses to the web site were concerning its usability, effectiveness, etc. The
benefit of the focus group is that it allowed the researchers to learn from the students, first-hand,
about any potential problems the program may have, while taking note of the aspects of the
program that appeal to the students, because of the informal nature of the discussion and openended question and answers.
Geography. Lorion (1998) wrote that “a school setting is ‘contaminated’ by the
attitudes, expectations, and behaviors that students and teachers carry from other settings into the
school, as well as by their immediate experiences within the school” (p. 295). There are many
studies that analyze the differences in bullying trends based on ethnicity, gender, and age. On
the other hand, there have not been many studies done on the differences in bullying trends based
14
on geographic location. In the book, Schools Make a Difference, Teddlie and Stringfield (1993)
outlined 16 differences in schools based on geographic locations (urban, suburban, and rural).
These differences are based around the four areas of the community and district office;
leadership; faculty and instructional organization; and curriculum and professional development.
In Violence in American Schools, Laub and Lauritsen (1998) wrote a chapter in which
they were able to identify several community factors that affect a school’s climate. These
include gang activity, neighborhood wealth (tied to school funding), etc. They also talked about
the influence of a community’s “social capital,” which consists of “physical capital” (material
resources) and “human capital” (an individual’s own skills and knowledge). When a school is
located in a community with high social capital, it can offset other factors that may influence a
student’s success or safety in the school (Laub & Lauritsen, 1998).
The geographic location and the community in which a school is set influence the school
and its students. One study (Kitsantas, Ware, & Martinez-Arias, 2004) provides a few reasons
why and how the community affects the students and their perceptions of safety in their schools.
One reason is that students are affected by the amount of violent behavior they are exposed to in
the neighborhoods where they live. So, the more exposure they have to violence in their
neighborhoods, the more trouble they experience in schools. Another reason is that the
community’s priorities, concerns, and interests, influence the safe school plan the school
implements.
In order for a safe school plan to be effective, it often needs to involve the community
(mental health professionals, law enforcement professionals, religious and community leaders,
etc.). In addition, Kitsantas et al. (2004) state that “community safety and school safety relative
to the community do influence adolescents’ perceptions of school safety” (p. 423). Results from
15
this study also suggest that the safety of the community may affect the perceptions adolescents
have of their school environment, and that adolescents “judge their safety in their school in terms
of the safety of their communities” (p.424). Another interesting finding is that the school safety
actions (the physical actions a school takes to ensure safety) were predicted by community
safety, as opposed to relative school safety. This concept of the safety of the community
affecting the perceived safety of the school is also supported by a study conducted by Sarason
(1996), which states that students and teachers tend to bring their experiences with violence from
the neighborhood into their schools, leading to “contamination.”
Comparative trends. More research needs to be done on the comparison of trends in the
schools based on geographic location (i.e. urban, suburban, or rural). Two studies looked at the
differences between rural, suburban, and urban schools in terms of dating violence. A study by
Bergman (1992) show that students in urban and suburban schools reported higher rates of
violence than rural schools, while the study by Spencer and Bryant (2000) shows that students in
rural schools are at greater risk for participating in dating violence than their suburban and urban
counterparts. Both studies agree, however, that the location of the school in terms of geography
should be considered an independent variable that requires further study.
Another study looked at the differences in health risks of junior and senior high school
students based on the location of their school (suburban, urban, or rural). This study (Atav &
Spencer, 2002) has shown that a significantly higher percentage of students in rural schools
engage in tobacco and alcohol use, as well as use other drugs frequently than their urban and
suburban counterparts (almost twice as likely). Similar significant results were also found in the
areas of sexual activity, having a history of pregnancy, bringing a knife, club, or other weapon to
16
school, carrying a knife, club, or other weapon in the community, bringing a gun to school
(almost twice as likely as their urban counterparts), and carrying a gun in the community.
Weist, Myers, Danforth, and McNeil (2000) conducted a study that compared the
differences between urban, suburban, and rural schools in terms of internalizing/externalizing
problems and stressors, and mental health supports. While the study did not find many
differences between the schools at the elementary level, they did find significant results at the
middle school and high school level. One finding is that students in the urban areas were
reported to have encountered high stress and present more severe internalizing problems than
students in rural or suburban areas. These stressors include exposure to violence, crime, parental
unemployment, domestic conflict, and familial alcohol and drug abuse. Substance abuse was
reported to be a greater problem for urban students than their suburban or rural counterparts at
the middle school level, but that trend seems to switch at the high school level.
The results of this study also show that urban schools also have the lowest number of
mental health support in the schools (based on number of serious barriers to mental health
support, and the number of hours provided in the school per week by mental health providers).
Although the students in the urban schools reported having the highest number of internalizing
problems, they received the least amount of mental health support (Weist et al., 2000). Very few
studies comparing the safety of students in suburban, urban, and rural schools have been done.
Isolated school trends. Although there are studies related to dating violence, exposure to
violence in the community, weapons in the schools, and perceptions of school safety, there are
no comparative studies targeting bullying trends specifically. In order to get a better
understanding of bullying trends in suburban, urban, and rural schools, one must look at studies
that just target an urban, suburban, or rural demographic.
17
Urban. In 1996, the National Center for Educational Statistics put out a report on trends
in urban schools in comparison to rural and suburban schools, and found that students and
teachers in urban schools reported feeling less safe and higher amounts of at-risk behaviors. One
finding is that 10th grade students in urban schools were more likely to report not feeling safe in
their school (13% compared to 8% each of suburban and rural schools). Urban teachers were
more than twice as likely to perceive weapons possession as a problem in their schools, as
compared to their suburban and rural counterparts. Teachers reported that alcohol use was less
of a problem in their schools than suburban or rural school teachers, although they reported that
drug use was more of a problem (United States Department of Education, 1996).
In the book, Violence in American Schools, Raymond Lorion (1998) wrote a chapter in
which he cited several studies regarding the negative effects students in urban schools experience
because of exposure to violence. Some of these effects include higher levels of generalized
emotional distress, as noted by Saltzman’s study (as cited in Lorion, 1998, p.302), greater feeling
of depression, anxiety, anger and general distress, as well as lower scores for self-esteem and
social competence, as reported by Singer and colleagues. Other studies attribute exposure to
violence with depression and other stress-related disorders, even comparing it to post-traumatic
stress disorder. These negative effects then adversely affect attendance to homework, the ability
to concentrate, and found it difficult not to be distracted by memories of traumatic events and
sights. This exposure has also been correlated with subsequent antisocial and violent behavior,
including increased aggression, conduct disorder, and truancy.
Although many students in urban areas are exposed to violence, it is difficult to
determine just how many students have been involved in bullying at the schools. The prevalence
rates in urban schools vary from 24% participation (Fleschler Peskin, Tortolero, & Markham,
18
2006) to over 72% participation (Hess & Atkins, 1998). More recent studies with urban school
participants tend to focus on differences in bullying trends based on ethnicity or socioeconomic
status. The study conducted by Fleschler et al. (2006) compared bullying trends of Black and
Hispanic students, noting that Black students were more likely to be considered a bully or victim
than Hispanic students. These findings are consistent with the findings of other studies
(Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003; Clubb et al., 2001).
A study by Kilpatrick Demaray and Kerres Malecki (2003) looked at the correlation
between bullying and social supports. They found that a large percentage (60-75%) reported
having been verbally bullied at least one time in the previous year, with about 5% of students
having been victims or more serious bullying behaviors. They also reported that the participants
in the comparison group (those students not involved in bullying as either bully, victim, or
bully/victim) received a statistically higher amount of social support than the bully, victim and
bully/victim (especially from teachers), but that those labeled as victim or bully/victim reported
social support as being more important.
A study conducted by Neft (2007) reported several findings related to prevalence rates in
the urban school compared with rural schools, teacher vs. self-reported bullying prevalence rates,
and the social and emotional skills of those involved in bullying as compared to those not
involved. First, the study showed that the bullying prevalence rates were higher and more stable
than the rates of rural, non-minority schools. It also reported that the teachers only agreed with
the self-reports of bullying one-third of the time, indicating that teachers and students are privy
to different information and most likely have different biases. Bullies and bully/victims were
classified as having aggressive, externalizing, and hyperactive behaviors, while non-involved
19
students were characterized by the absence of these problem behaviors. On the other hand,
victims were characterized as having internalizing behaviors.
Two other studies looked at the characteristics of students in urban schools who were
classified as bullies and victims. One study reported peer-nominated bullies as scoring high on
the scales of Bullying Behavior, Athletic Competence, and Behavioral Conduct. Victims
received lower scores on the Social Acceptance, Scholastic Achievement, Athletic Competence,
Behavioral Conduct, Physical Appearance, and Self-Worth scales (Engert, 2002). The other
study looked at which characteristics would increase the likelihood of someone being classified
as a bully. Results showed that participants who endorsed higher normative beliefs about
aggression (it is okay to hit, shove, etc.), and showed lower levels of empathy, increased their
likelihood of being classified as a relational bully by 20%. If those participants had a high level
of empathy, the likelihood dropped to 1% (Esposito, 2007).
Suburban. A few studies have been done in the elite suburban schools regarding violent
behaviors, such as bullying, teasing, hazing, and carrying weapons to school. After interviewing
several students at an elite suburban high school, Stoudt (2006) found that the students described
a school that created not only an academically competitive place (as described by 96% of
participants), but a socially competitive place as well (as described by 57%). The students
described their all-male school as a place where it was commonplace to use teasing, hazing, and
verbal abuse to establish what was acceptable and not acceptable by the students at the school.
Acceptance of these actions is required to be “accepted” by other students at the school.
Another study by Hawkins, Campanero, Bice, Pitts, and Steiner (2002) focused more on
the weapons use in affluent suburban high schools. They found that despite the social support
from home and the high SES, weapons use among suburban teens exist at a high rate. Over one-
20
third of the participants reported having carried a weapon to school for protection or to use in
case of a fight. In addition, almost half of the participants reported knowing a friend who has
brought a weapon to school. Even without the at-risk factors of poverty, high neighborhood
violence, or lack of social supports at home, the prevalence rates at the school were at about the
national average.
One study (Burger, 2007) looked at the prevalence rates of bullying (both those who have
observed bullying and those who have engaged in bullying), what behaviors students consider to
be bullying, teasing, sexual harassment, or none of the above. Based on the listed behaviors,
results indicate that 80-90% of students observe moderate levels of verbal, relational, or physical
bullying in their school, overall, while about 50% of students reports having observed more
severe levels of bullying. The study also shows that bullying is a serious problem in the schools.
About 54% of students report to having been verbally bullied, 48% reported being the victim of
relational bullying, and 37% reported having been physically bullied. Meanwhile, about 40%
reported having verbally bullied someone, 35% have relationally bullied someone, and about
21% physically bullied someone. These rates may not be accurate as students did not always
consider certain behaviors to be bullying. For example, only about 53% of students considered
calling someone a hurtful name to be bullying.
Likewise, another study reported the bullying prevalence rates of elementary school
students at a suburban district in Georgia as nearly 60% participation: 33% identified as victims,
2.4% as bullies, 13.7% as bully/victims, and 10.7% as marginally involved (Hunt, 2002). Hunt
reported verbal bullying to be most prevalent, followed by relational aggression, and then
physical aggression. Some of the most popular coping mechanisms used by the students
includes ignoring them, talking to the bully, or telling someone at home. The study did report
21
that about 65% of the students would report to the teacher if they were being bullied, and that
about 69% would tell the teacher if they saw another person getting bullied, but there have not
been studies done on whether these reporting trends would continue as the students get older. In
addition, the survey question asks the students what they would do if they were bullied, not what
they did when they were bullied, which may affect the amount of actual reporting to school
personnel.
A study by Reuter-Rice (2006) looked at the psychosocial effects of male students who
were victimized at their suburban high school. Of those who participated, 25.5% reported to
being victims, and half of those victims had been victimized at least 5 times in the last month.
Seventy percent of those who were identified as victims also reported severe anxiety and concern
of school violence. This was especially true for those victims who were African-American.
Meanwhile, another study focused on the effects that bullying had on female students
involved in bullying. The study shows that 20% of the participants at suburban high schools
were exposed to direct or indirect bullying, about 10% bullied other students, and 6% reported
that teachers were bullied by students at least once a week. Results also indicated that a majority
of the bullying took place at school, and that even one-time bullying events had long-lasting
negative effects. Although the presence of the teacher was effective in reducing bullying
incidents, most of the participants believed that parents and teachers were either unaware of the
bullying that was taking place, or did not care (Lampert, 1998). Another study reported that
bullying negatively affects males in terms of self-definition, and females in terms of
interpersonal relationships (Sacco, 2002).
Rural. More literature is being gathered to dispel the myth that bullying only occurs in
urban schools. Several studies have found that violence takes place in a majority of rural
22
schools. For example, the National School Board Administration found that of 700 schools in
the study, violence and assault were predominant in 69% of those schools (Bachus, 1994). A
study conducted by Hoover, Oliver and Hazler (1992) found that 72-81% of rural middle and
high school students were bullied sometime during their school experience. Likewise, another
study found that 82% of students at rural elementary and middle schools were bullied in a threemonth period (Dulmus, Theriot, Sowers, & Blackburn, 2004).
It is hard to determine just how much students are being bullied in their schools. A study
by Stockdale, Hangaduambo, Duys, Larson, and Sarvela (2002) compared the students’
perceptions of bullying to those of the parents and the teachers of those schools. Results showed
that the percentage of students who reported having experienced a verbal (76%) or physical
(66%) bullying incident in a one-week period was much higher than the subjective assessment
that they have been bullied. This is concurrent with other studies, which state that students are
unlikely to report that they have been bullied unless the incidents are frequent or severe (Dulmus,
et al, 2004). In addition, students were less likely than parents or teachers to believe that verbal,
exclusionary, or physical behaviors constitute bullying.
Those involved in bullying incidents also experience other consequences. In a study by
Estell, Farmer, and Cairns (2007), where 30% of the sample were identified as either a bully or a
victim, both bullies and victims were more likely to be rejected by peers. However, victims
tended to be more isolated, while those who were considered to be bullied were viewed as
leaders by both their peers and teachers. Another study looked at how students in rural schools
coped when they are the targets of overt and relational aggression. They found that 6th graders
were more likely to implement distancing and internalizing strategies for coping with relational
aggression than with overt aggression, while 3rd graders were more likely to implement support-
23
seeking strategies. Sixth graders were also more likely to implement externalizing strategies to
cope with overt aggression than with relational aggression (Roecker Phelps, 2001).
In addition to coping with the bullying behaviors, students who are bullied also have a
more negative attitude toward school than their non-bullied counterparts, and have a greater fear
of being bullied. The study by Dulmus et al. (2004) also found that almost half of the nonbullied students felt sorry for those who were bullied and wanted to help them. Unfortunately, a
large percentage of the students (both bullied and non-bullied) believed that teachers do little or
nothing to counteract bullying in the school. These findings support the hypothesis by Olweus
(1993) that a lack of communication about bullying contributes to the high prevalence rates in
rural areas, which leads to a lower awareness of it occurring in the school.
Current Limitations
The results of this review of literature indicate that there is plenty of research that has
been done on bullying, and that bullying continues to be an area of concern that affects many
students in the secondary schools. Another area of concern is that much of the incidents of
bullying and other school violence is not reported to school personnel, making it difficult to
prevent future incidents from occurring or punishing those who commit acts of school violence.
There is, however less research on non-traditional ways of reporting, such as using a telephone
hotline, text messaging, or a website to report bullying incidents. As more and more schools are
looking at these non-traditional methods to combat bullying, there is a greater need for additional
research in this area. Another area that requires more attention is the affect that geographic
location has on a school setting. Research has shown that the community that surrounds a school
affects the school and the students that attend it (Lorion, 1998) and that there are definite
differences between an urban, suburban, and rural school (Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993). Current
24
research has compared other aspects of school violence and at-risk behaviors, but very little
current research has been done comparing the bullying trends and reporting preferences of
schools in an urban, suburban, and rural setting.
25
Method
The sections included in this chapter provide information on the participants used in this
study and how they were chosen, describe the survey used, and discuss the measures and
procedures used to collect the data.
Participants
For this study, about 1,600 7th and 8th grade students were selected to participate from 3
schools in Utah. Mount Ogden Middle School, an urban school in Ogden, UT, was chosen to
represent the urban demographic. Lehi Junior High School, a suburban school in Lehi, UT, was
chosen to represent the suburban demographic. North Sanpete Middle School, a rural school in
Moroni, UT, was chosen to represent the rural demographic. In order to determine which
schools would be chosen for the study, each middle school and junior high school in Utah was
placed in one of the following categories: small, midsize, or large city; small, midsize, or large
suburb; or fringe, distant, or remote rural area, as defined by the National Center for Education
Statistics (see Appendix A for geographic definitions). According to these definitions, Mount
Ogden Middle School was classified as a small city, Lehi Junior High was classified as a large
suburban school, and North Sanpete Middle School was categorized as a distant rural school.
Mount Ogden Middle School is located in Ogden, UT. Ogden is a small city with a
population of about 77,000 people and covers 27 square miles. Mount Ogden Middle School
was one of three middle schools in the city limits (Ogden City, n.d.). During the 2008-2009
school year, Mount Ogden Middle School consisted of 859 students, 547 of which were in either
the 7th or 8th grade. At Mount Ogden Middle School, 69.8% of the students were economically
disadvantaged (receives free or reduced lunch). The student body consisted of the following:
51.6% White, 41.8% Hispanic, 2.9% Asian, 3.1% Black, and less than 1% American
26
Indian/Alaskan Native. The students were also 51.2% Male and 48.8% Female (United States
Department of Education, n.d.). For the study, only a select number of 7th and 8th grade students
from specific classes at Mount Ogden Middle School were selected to participate (about 200
students).
Lehi Junior High is located in Lehi, Utah. As of July 2007, the population of Lehi, Utah
was 36,885 (Onboard Informatics, 2008). During the 2008-2009 school year, Lehi Junior High
School contained 1,069 students, 720 of which were in the 7th or 8th grade. At Lehi Junior High
School, 22.6% of the students were economically disadvantaged (receives free or reduced lunch).
The student body consisted of 93.3% White, 4.1% Hispanic, 1.5% Asian, less than 1% Black,
and less than 1% American Indian/Alaskan Native. The students were also 52.4% Male and
47.6% Female (United States Department of Education, n.d.). In this study, all 7th and 8th grade
students at Lehi Junior High were selected to participate.
North Sanpete Middle School is located in Moroni, UT. As of July 2007, the population
of Moroni, Utah was 1,294 (Onboard Informatics, 2008). North Sanpete Middle School was the
only Middle School in Moroni, UT, and the student population was drawn from five
communities in central Utah: Fairview, Mount Pleasant, Spring City, Moroni, and Fountain
Green (North Sanpete Middle School, n.d.). During the 2008-2009 school year, there were 336
students at North Sanpete Middle School, all of which were in the 7th or 8th grade. At North
Sanpete Middle School, 57.7% of the students were economically disadvantaged (receives free
or reduced lunch). The student body consisted of 88.4% White, 9.8% Hispanic, less than 1%
Asian, less than 1% Black, and less than 1% American Indian/Alaskan Native. The students
were also 44.3% Male and 55.7% Female (IES, n.d.). Because the school only consisted of 7th
and 8th students, all students were selected to participate.
27
Measures
Data were collected using the Safe Schools Survey available at www.schooltipline.com.
This survey was developed by researchers at Brigham Young University in Provo, UT. This
online survey was a 16-question anonymous survey about bullying and school safety. The
questions of this survey asked for demographic information (gender, ethnicity, grade level), as
well as information about the frequency of bullying: how often it occurs, where it occurs, and
when it occurs. Some of the questions also asked about how bullying was reported at their
school: if they felt comfortable reporting, if they would feel more comfortable using an
anonymous online website, and so forth. For those students whose primary language was
Spanish, a Spanish version of the survey was also provided online.
The survey consisted of 16 multiple-choice questions. Seven of those questions required
that the student select each option that applied to him/her. There were also five questions that
provided for an “Other” category or provided a way for the student to explain his/her response
(see Appendices B and C for survey questions). The reliability of the survey was measured
using a test/re-test method (see Procedures section for details).
Procedures and Data Collection
School administration at the selected schools met with the researchers and were given an
overview of the SchoolTipline program, as well as the surveys that the students were given.
They were also given the parental consent forms to be used. After receiving written approval
from each school principal or assistant principal, the school administration was contacted to set
up dates, times, procedures, and places for the surveys. The Institutional Review Board of
Brigham Young University approved the analyses for the study.
28
After the participants in each school were selected, active parental consent forms were
collected by teachers and other school administration. Each school provided their own incentive
for getting the students to participate. Both the rural and urban schools provided candy as an
incentive, while the suburban school offered either class credit or extra credit. After all the
consent forms were collected, there were 70 participants from the urban school, 419 participants
from the suburban school, and 74 participants from the rural school. There were no negative
consequences for a student who refused to participate, or whose parent did not give consent.
Handouts were given to the participating students, providing step-by-step instructions on
how to take the survey (see Appendix C). In addition, the students were instructed either by the
researchers, or by school administration that were trained by the researchers. In order for the
student to take the survey online, they had to provide their assent by clicking on a box that stated
that they agree to the conditions of the study, and which provided additional information when
requested.
One class (about 20-30 students) from each school was chosen to also participate in the
reliability testing of the survey. Each of those students took the survey the first time then took
the same survey again two days later. Each of these participating students was given a case ID
so that their two surveys could be matched and analyzed for reliability. The participants for the
reliability testing consisted of 9 students from the urban school, 28 students from the suburban
school, and 11 students from the rural school. The purpose of conducting the reliability testing
was to determine if the Safe School survey, created by SchoolTipline and a research team from
Brigham Young University, yielded consistent results. This would indicate that the respondents
had a fairly good understanding of what was being asked, and could accurately respond.
29
Results
This section analyzes the demographics of the participants, discusses the reliability of the
survey, and provides the descriptive and analytical data from the survey. There were twelve
questions examined in this study, one of which had a qualitative component. The quantitative
results are provided, followed by the qualitative analysis.
Participants
Of the 70 students at the urban school who provided positive parental consent and
completed the online survey, 39 (56.5%) were females and 31 (44.3%) were males. Ethnically,
22 students (31.9%) identified themselves as being White, 39 (56.5) students as Hispanic, 2
(2.9%) as Asian, 1 (1.4%) as Native American/Alaskan American, 2 (2.9%) as African
American, and 2 (2.9%) as Other. Forty-three (62.3%) of the students were in the 7th grade,
while 27 (38.6%) were in the 8th grade.
There were 710 7th and 8th grade students at the suburban school. Of those students, 419
students (59.0%) provided positive parental consent and completed the online survey. Two
hundred twenty-six (53.9%) were females, 192 (45.8%) were males, and one participant (0.3%)
chose not to specify. Ethnically, 335 students (80.0%) identified themselves as being White, 27
(6.4%) students as Hispanic, 9 (2.1%) as Asian, 3 (0.7%) as Pacific Islander, 7 (1.7%) as Native
American/Alaskan American, 6 (1.4%) as African American, and 22 (5.3%) as Other. One
hundred eighty-nine of the students (45.1%) were in the 7th grade, while 230 (54.9%) were in the
8th grade.
Of the 336 seventh and eighth grade students at the rural school, 74 (22.0%) students
received positive parental consent and completed the online survey. Thirty-nine (52.7%) were
females and 35 (47.3%) were males. Ethnically, 68 (91.9%) students identified themselves as
30
being White, 2 (2.7%) students as Hispanic, 0 (0.0%) as Asian, 1 (1.4) as Native
American/Alaskan American, 1 (1.4%) as African American, and 2 (2.7%) as Other. Fifty-one
(68.9%) of the students were in the 7th grade, while 23 (31.1%) were in the 8th grade.
Reliability
Reliability testing was conducted to determine the consistency of the responses produced
by the questions of the survey. This was done by having a number of respondents answer the
survey questions, and then answer the same survey questions two days later. A total of forty-five
students from the three schools participated in the reliability testing. A ratio was calculated to
determine the percentage of students whose responses were consistent from Time 1 to Time 2
(see Table 1). If a response was missing for a question during Time 1 or Time 2, that response
was not used to determine the reliability ratio for that question. A reliability ratio equaling 80%
and above was considered acceptable. There were two questions that received a reliability ratio
equaling below 80%. Question 1, “At school, how often have YOU been teased, made fun of,
taunted, gossiped about, (verbally bullied) by the same person in the past two months?” received
a reliability percentage of 68.2%, and Question 2, “At school, how often have YOU been kicked,
hit, shoved, tripped, (physically bullied) by the same person in the past two months?” received a
reliability percentage of 59.1%. Ten of the 14 changes in response for Question 1 were a one
point difference (i.e. changing the response from Once to Two to three times). Likewise, 15 of
the 18 changes in response for Question 2 were a one point difference. It is possible that the
students may have changed their responses for these two questions if they 1) thought about other
times they had been bullied in the last two months, or 2) were actually bullied during those two
days.
31
Table 1
Reliability of student responses from Time 1 to Time 2
Question
How often verb bullied?
How often phys bullied?
Where were you bullied?
School bus
Classroom
Bathroom
Playground
Hallways
Lunchroom
On the way home
Never happened
When were you bullied?
Before school
Between classes
During class
During lunch
After school
Never happened
You, who did you report to?
Parent
Friend
Teacher
Office
No one
Never happened
Report if anonymous?
How would you prefer to report?
Would you use the website?
Else, who did you report to?
Parent
Friend
Teacher
Office
No one
Never happened
Gender
Grade
Ethnicity
Ratio from
Time 1 to Time 2
30/44
26/44
Percent
68.2%
59.1%
43/45
41/45
44/45
45/45
40/45
40/45
43/45
43/45
95.6%
91.1%
97.8%
100%
88.9%
88.9%
95.6%
95.6%
40/45
40/45
43/45
41/45
42/45
43/45
88.9%
88.9%
95.6%
91.1%
93.3%
95.6%
42/45
36/45
44/45
43/45
36/45
40/45
39/45
39/43
25/28
93.3%
80.0%
97.8%
95.6%
80.0%
88.9%
86.7%
90.7%
89.3%
42/45
42/45
42/45
40/45
38/45
40/45
44/44
45/45
43/44
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
88.9%
84.4%
88.9%
100%
100%
97.7%
32
The three demographics questions were expected to have 100% reliability. For question
14, which asked the respondents to determine their gender, every response was consistent from
Time 1 to Time 2, with the exception of one student who did not respond the second time, after
responding the first time. Question 15 asked the respondents to determine their grade, to which
every respondent answered the same from Time 1 to Time 2. Question 16 asked the respondents
to determine their ethnicity, to which every respondent the same from Time 1 to Time 2, except
one. This student changed the response from White/Caucasian to African American.
Data Analysis
The collected data was analyzed using a mixed method approach. The quantitative data
collected from the survey was analyzed in two parts using SPSS. The first part used descriptive
statistics to determine the frequency of the responses. The second part used non-parametric
analytical statistics to determine any statistically significant differences among the three schools.
Due to the ordinal nature of the responses for Questions 1 and 2, a Kruskal-Wallis test was used
to determine significant differences, while a Chi-Square test was used for the remaining
questions due to their nominal responses. Once a significant difference was determined, Oneway ANOVA Post hoc Tukey tests were run to determine which schools had significantly
different responses. Although an ANOVA test is a parametric test, it was used because there
were no non-parametric tests to determine where the significant differences were. Questions 6,
10, 12, and 13 were not analyzed in this study because they do not relate directly to the four
research questions.
Because of the relatively small number of participants, p values of less than .05 were
viewed as statistically significant. The qualitative data were analyzed using an inductive
approach. The researchers used verbatim responses to group the responses with common
33
characteristics. The researchers then grouped the characteristics into larger domains and
recurring themes. One researcher created the domains, and a separate researcher reviewed those
responses and domains. Discrepancies were resolved by the two researchers until an agreement
was reached.
Bullying trends. The first question of the survey asked students how often they had been
verbally bullied in the past two months. Respondents were given several options: Never, Once,
Two to three times, About once a week, and Several times a week. These responses were each
given a value ranging from 0 (Never) to 5 (Several times a week). Of the 70 respondents from
the urban school, 29 answered Never; 15 answered Once; 8 answered Two to three times; 6
answered About once a week; and 12 answered Several times a week. Of the 419 respondents
from the suburban school, 180 answered Never; 75 answered Once; 75 answered Two to three
times; 40 answered About once a week; 48 answered Several times a week; and 1 student did not
respond. Of the 74 respondents from the rural school, 19 answered Never; 11 answered Once;
16 answered Two to three times; 12 answered About once a week; and 15 answered Several times
a week. One student did not respond to this question (see Table 2).
Table 2
Frequencies of responses when students were asked how often they were verbally bullied in the
last two months.
Never
Urban
n = 70
41.4%
School
Suburban
n = 418
43.0%
Rural
n =73
26.0%
Once
21.4%
17.9%
15.1%
2-3 Times
11.4%
17.9%
21.9%
About once a week
8.6%
9.5%
16.4%
Several times a week
17.1%
11.5%
20.6%
Responses
34
The Kruskal-Wallis test was run to determine if there were any statistically significant
differences among the three schools. According to the results, there was a statistically significant
difference among the three schools (p = .003). Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test
indicated that the mean score for the respondents at the rural school reported a significantly
greater amount of verbal bullying than those at the suburban school (p = .002) (see Table 3).
Table 3
Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning how often they had been
verbally bullied.
School
Mean Rank
Urban
281.17
Suburban
270.54
(I) School (J) School
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Rural
Suburban
Rural
Urban
Urban
Suburban
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
P
-.518
.085
-.604
-.085
.242
.182
.178
.182
.082
.886
.002*
.886
.518
.242
.082
.604
.178
.002*
Note. Results from the Kruskal-Wallis yielded significant differences among the three schools (p
= .003).
* Mean difference is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
Rural
336.92
The second question of the survey asked students how often they had been physically
bullied in the past two months. Respondents were given several options: Never, Once, Two to
three times, About once a week, and Several times a week. These responses were each given a
value ranging from 0 (Never) to 5 (Several times a week). Of the 70 respondents from the urban
school, 43 answered Never; 11 answered Once; 6 answered Two to three times; 3 answered
About once a week; and 7 answered Several times a week. Of the 419 respondents from the
suburban school, 264 answered Never; 84 answered Once; 22 answered Two to three times; 34
answered About once a week; and 15 answered Several times a week. Of the 74 respondents
from the rural school, 28 answered Never; 17 answered Once; 11 answered Two to three times;
35
12 answered About once a week; and 6 answered Several times a week (see Table 4). The
Kruskal-Wallis test was run to determine if there were any statistically significant differences
among the three schools. According to the results, there was a statistically significant difference
among the three schools (p = .000). Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated
that the mean score for the respondents at rural school was significantly higher than respondents
at both the urban school and the suburban school (p = .43 and p = .000, respectively) (see Table
5).
The third question asked about where the bullying takes place. The question required the
respondents to check all of the responses that applied to him/her. The 70 respondents from the
urban school checked 95 boxes, 32 of which responded Never happened. The results of the 63
remaining checked boxes indicate most of the bullying takes place in the Hallways with 29
responses, followed by the Classroom with 18, the Lunchroom with 9, the Bathroom with 4, the
School bus with 2, On the way home with 1, and the Playground with 0. The suburban school
had 419 respondents who checked 640 boxes. Of those responses, 172 checked Never happened.
The results of the remaining 463 checked boxes indicate most of the bullying takes place in the
Hallways with 187, followed by the Classroom with 108, the Lunchroom with 72, the
Playground with 38, the School bus with 27, On the way home with 23, and the Bathroom with
13. The 74 respondents from the rural school checked 136 boxes, 16 of which responded Never
happened. The results of the remaining 120 checked boxes indicate most of the bullying takes
place in the Hallways with 41, followed by the Lunchroom with 26, the Classroom with 24, the
School bus with 13, the Playground with 9, On the way home with 6, and the Bathroom with 1
(see Table 6).
36
Table 4
Frequencies of responses when students were asked how often they were physically bullied in the
last two months.
School
Responses
Urban
n = 70
Suburban
n = 419
Rural
n = 74
Never
61.4%
63.0%
37.8%
Once
15.7%
20.0%
23.0%
2-3 Times
8.6%
5.3%
14.9%
About once a week
4.3%
8.1%
16.2%
10.0%
3.6%
8.1%
Several times a week
Table 5
Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning how often they had been
physically bullied.
School
Mean Rank
Urban
282.55
Suburban
269.31
Rural
349.53
(I) School (J) School
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
P
Urban
Rural
Suburban
-.481
.160
.200
.151
.043*
.540
Suburban
Rural
Urban
-.640
-.160
.147
.151
.000*
.540
Rural
Urban
Suburban
.481
.640
.200
.147
.043*
.000*
Note. Results from the Kruskal-Wallis yielded significant differences among the three schools (p
= .000).
* Mean difference is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
37
Table 6
Frequencies of responses when students were asked where they were bullied.
School bus
Urban
n = 95
2.1%
School
Suburban
n = 640
4.2%
Rural
n = 136
9.6%
Classroom
19.0%
16.9%
17.7%
Bathroom
4.2%
2.0%
0.7%
Playground
0.0%
5.9%
6.6%
30.5%
29.2%
30.2%
Lunchroom
9.5%
11.3%
19.1%
On the way home
1.1%
3.6%
4.4%
Never happened
33.7%
26.9%
11.8%
Responses
Hallways
Further analysis indicates there were statistically significant differences in the responses
among the three schools for the Never happened response and for the following locations: School
bus, Playground, and Lunchroom. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated
that the mean score for the number of respondents from the urban school and suburban school
who checked the Never happened box was significantly higher than the mean score for the
number of respondents from the rural school (p = .009 and p = .001, respectively). The mean
score for the number of respondents from the rural school who checked the School Bus box was
significantly higher than the mean score for the number of respondents from both the suburban
school and the urban school (p = .008 and p = .003). The mean scores for the number of
respondents from the rural school and the suburban school who checked the Playground box
were significantly higher than the mean score for the number of respondents from the urban
school (p = .018 and p = .041, respectively). The mean score for the number of respondents
from the rural school who checked the Lunchroom box was significantly higher than the mean
38
scores for the number of respondents from the urban school and the suburban school (p = .002
and p = .004, respectively) (see Table 7).
The fourth question asks about when the bullying takes place. The question required the
respondents to check all of the responses that applied to him/her. The 70 respondents from the
urban school checked 164 boxes, 30 of which responded Never happened. The results of the 134
remaining checked boxes indicate most of the bullying takes place After school with 70,
followed by During class with 26, Between classes with 18, During lunch with 14, and Before
school with 6. The suburban school had 419 respondents who checked 630 boxes. Of those
responses, 170 checked Never happened. The results of the remaining 460 checked boxes
indicate most of the bullying takes place Between classes with 144, followed by During lunch
with 110, During class with 106, After school with 53, and Before school with 47. The rural
school had 74 respondents who checked 137 boxes. Of those responses, 15 checked Never
happened. The results of the remaining 122 boxes indicate most of the bullying takes place
Between classes with 40, followed by During lunch with 26, During class with 24, After school
with 17 and Before school with 15 (see Table 8).
Further analysis indicates there are statistically significant differences in the responses
among the three schools for the Never happened response and Between classes. Post hoc
comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean scores for the number of
respondents from the urban school and the suburban school who checked the Never happened
box are significantly higher than the mean score for the number of respondents from the rural
school (p = .016 and p = .001, respectively). The mean score for the number of respondents
from the rural school who checked the Between classes is significantly higher than the mean
score for the number of respondents from the suburban school (p = .009) (see Table 9).
39
Table 7
Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning where they were bullied.
Responses
School bus
Playground
Lunchroom
Never happened
(I) School (J) School
Mean
Difference (I-J)
Std. Error
P
Urban
Rural
Suburban
-.147
-.047
.045
.034
.003*
.351
Suburban
Rural
Urban
-.100
.047
.033
.034
.008*
.351
Rural
Urban
Suburban
.147
.100
.045
.033
.003*
.008*
Urban
Rural
Suburban
-.122
-.082
.045
.034
.018*
.444
Suburban
Rural
Urban
-.040
.082
.033
.034
.444
.041*
Rural
Urban
Suburban
.122
.040
.045
.033
.018*
.444
Urban
Rural
Suburban
-.223
-.065
.067
.050
.002*
.398
Suburban
Rural
Urban
-.158
.065
.049
.050
.004*
.398
Rural
Urban
Suburban
.223
.158
.067
.049
.002*
.004*
Urban
Rural
Suburban
.241
.029
.082
.061
.009*
.885
Suburban
Rural
Urban
.212
-.029
.060
.061
.001*
.885
Rural
Urban
Suburban
-.241
-.212
.082
.061
.009*
.001*
Note. The following locations did not yield significant results on the Chi-Square test and were
therefore not included: classroom, bathroom, hallways, and on the way home.
* Mean difference is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
40
Table 8
Frequencies of responses when students were asked when they were bullied.
School
Responses
Before school
Urban
n = 164
Suburban
n = 630
Rural
n = 137
3.7%
7.5%
11.0%
In between classes
11.0%
22.8%
29.2%
During class
15.9%
16.8%
17.5%
During lunch
8.5%
17.5%
19.0%
After school
42.7%
8.4%
12.2%
Never happened
18.3%
27.0%
11.0%
Table 9
Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning when they were bullied.
Responses
Between classes
Never happened
(I) School (J) School
Mean
Difference (I-J)
Std. Error
P
Urban
Rural
Suburban
-.169
.007
.081
.061
.091
.993
Suburban
Rural
Urban
-.176
-.007
.059
.061
.009*
.993
Rural
Urban
Suburban
.169
.176
.081
.059
.091
.009*
Urban
Rural
Suburban
.226
.000
.081
.061
.016*
.001*
Suburban
Rural
Urban
.225
.000
.060
.061
.001*
1.000
Rural
Urban
Suburban
-.226
-.225
.081
.060
.016*
.001*
Note. The following locations did not yield significant results on the Chi-Square test and were
therefore not included: before school, during classes, during lunch, and after school.
* Mean difference is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
41
Reporting trends. The fifth question asked, “When this [bullying] happened to YOU,
who did you report to?” The question required the respondents to check all of the responses that
applied to him/her. The 70 respondents from the urban school checked 78 boxes, 30 of which
were Never Happened. The remaining 48 consist of No one with 26, Friend with 10, Parent
with 7, Teacher with 4, and Office with 1. The suburban school had 419 respondents who
checked 482 boxes. Of those responses, 171 of which were Never Happened. The remaining
311 consist of No one with 145, Friend with 70, Parent with 59, the Office with 23, and Teacher
with 14. The rural school had 74 respondents who checked 95 boxes, 16 of which were Never
Happened. The remaining 79 consist of No one with 36, Friend with 18, Parent with 12, Teacher
with 9, and the Office with 4 (see Table 10).
Table 10
Frequencies of responses when students were asked who they reported to when they were
bullied.
Parent
Urban
n = 78
9.0%
School
Suburban
n = 482
12.2%
Rural
n = 95
12.6%
Friend/Student
12.8%
14.5%
19.0%
Teacher
5.1%
2.9%
9.5%
Office or Counselor
1.3%
4.8%
4.2%
I did not report
33.3%
30.1%
37.9%
Never happened
38.5%
35.5%
16.8%
Responses
Further analysis indicates there are statistically significant differences in the responses
among the three schools for the Teacher and Never happened responses. Post hoc comparisons
using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the number of respondents from the
rural school who checked the Teacher box is significantly higher than the mean score for the
42
number of respondents from the suburban school (p = .001). The Tukey HSD test also indicated
that the mean scores for the number of respondents from the urban school and the suburban
school who checked the Never happened boxes are significantly higher than the mean score for
the number of respondents from the rural school (p = .025 and p = .001, respectively) (see Table
11).
Table 11
Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning who they reported to when
they were bullied.
Mean
Std. Error
P
Difference (I-J)
Teacher
Urban
Rural
-.064
.034
.137
Suburban .024
.025
.617
Suburban Rural
-.088
.025
.001*
Urban
-.024
.025
.617
Rural
Urban
.064
.034
.137
Suburban .088
.025
.001*
Never happened
Urban
Rural
.212
.081
.025*
Suburban .000
.061
1.000
Suburban Rural
.212
.060
.001*
Urban
.000
.061
1.000
Rural
Urban
-.212
.081
.025*
Suburban -.212
.060
.001*
Note. The following locations did not yield significant results on the Chi-Square test and were
therefore not included: parent, friend/student, office or counselor, and I did not report.
* Mean difference is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
Responses
(I) School (J) School
The eleventh question asked, “When you have seen someone else get bullied, who did
you report to?” The question required the respondents to check all of the responses that applied
to him/her. The 70 respondents from the urban school checked 79 boxes, 18 of which were
Never seen. The remaining 61 consist of No one with 26, Friend with 15, Teacher with 9,
Parent with 7, and Office with 4. The suburban school had 419 respondents who checked 546
boxes. Of those responses, 126 of which were Never Seen. The remaining 420 consist of No one
43
with 121, Parent with 96, Friend with 92, Teacher with 71, and the Office with 40. The rural
school had 74 respondents who checked 109 boxes, 18 of which were Never seen. The
remaining 91 consist of No one with 23, Friend with 25, Teacher with 21, Parent with 13, and
the Office with 9 (see Table 12).
Table 12
Frequencies of responses when students were asked who they reported to when they saw
someone else being bullied.
Parent
Urban
n = 79
8.9%
School
Suburban
n = 546
22.9%
Rural
n = 110
11.9%
Friend/Student
19.0%
22.0%
22.9%
Teacher
11.4%
16.9%
19.3%
Office or Counselor
5.1%
9.5
8.3%
I did not report
32.9%
28.9%
21.1%
Never seen
22.8%
30.1%
16.5%
Responses
Further analysis indicates there are statistically significant differences in the responses
among the three schools for the Teacher responses. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD
test indicated that the mean score for the number of respondents from the rural school who
checked the Teacher box is significantly higher than both the mean score for the number of
respondents from the suburban school and the urban school (p = .022 and p = .035, respectively).
Although further analysis indicates that there are significant differences in the responses among
the three schools for the Parent responses, post hoc comparisons could not be used to determine
where those differences lie. The standardized residual indicates that the number of individuals
who responded Yes for this response is lower than expected for the urban school (R = -1.9, p =
.041) (see Table 13).
44
Table 13
Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning who they reported to when
they saw someone else being bullied.
Responses
Teacher
(I) School (J) School
Mean
Difference (I-J)
Std. Error
P
Urban
Rural
Suburban
-.155
-.033
.062
.047
.035*
.759
Suburban
Rural
Urban
-.122
.033
.046
.047
.022*
.759
Rural
Urban
Suburban
.155
.122
.062
.046
.035*
.022*
Note. The following locations did not yield significant results on the Chi-Square test and were
therefore not included: friend/student, office or counselor, I did not report, and never seen. The
parent response yielded significant results on the Chi-Square, but not on the Tukey test; however,
standardized residual indicates the number of individuals who responded Yes for this response is
lower than expected for the urban school (R = -1.9)
* Mean difference is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
Reporting preferences. The seventh question asked, “Would you have reported if it was
anonymous?” The respondents answered either Yes, No, or I reported. Sixty-nine of the 70
respondents from the urban school answered this question. Of those 69 respondents, 33
responded with Yes, 36 responded with No, and 0 responded I reported. Of the 419 respondents
from the suburban school, 246 responded with Yes, 136 responded with No, 34 responded I
reported, and 3 did not respond. Of the 74 respondents from the rural school, 45 responded with
Yes, 22 responded with No, and 7 responded I reported (see Table 14). The comparative
analysis, using the Chi-Square test indicated there were significant differences among the three
schools (p = .005); however, further analysis using the ANOVA and post hoc Tukey HSD tests
did not yield any significant results. The standardized residuals for this question indicate that the
number of students who reported No for the urban school was significantly higher than what was
45
expected, and the number of students who responded I reported was significantly lower than
what was expected (R = 2.5, p < .05; and R = -2.2, p < .05, respectively).
Table 14
Frequencies of responses when students were asked if they would report if it was anonymous.
School
Responses
Urban
n = 69
Suburban
n = 416
Rural
n = 74
Yes
47.8%
58.7%
60.8%
No
52.5%
32.5%
29.7%
0.0%
8.1%
9.5%
I reported
The eighth question asked, “How would you prefer to report problems?” The
respondents answered either Website or Phone call/hot line. Sixty-nine of the 70 respondents
from the urban school answered this question. Of those 69 respondents, 32 responded with
Website, 33 responded with Phone call/hot line, and 4 did not respond. Of the 419 respondents
from the suburban school 340 responded with Website, 65 responded with Phone call/hot line,
and 14 did not respond. Of the 74 respondents from the rural school, 52 responded with Website,
20 responded with Phone call/hot line, and 2 did not respond (see Table 15). Further analysis
indicates there are statistically significant differences in the responses among the three schools
for this question (p = .000). Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the
mean score for the number of respondents from the urban school is significantly higher than the
mean score for the number of respondents from the suburban school and the rural school (p =
.003 and p = .000, respectively) (see Table 16).
46
Table 15
Frequencies of responses when students were asked who how they would prefer to report
bullying.
School
Responses
Urban
n = 69
Suburban
n = 419
Rural
n = 74
Website
46.4%
81.1%
70.3%
Phone call/hot line
47.8%
15.5%
27.8%
Did not respond
5.8%
3.3%
2.7%
Table 16
Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning how would prefer to report.
Mean
Std. Error
P
Difference (I-J)
Urban
Rural
.222
.068
.003*
Urban
Suburban
.329
.051
.000*
Suburban Rural
-.106
.049
.079
Suburban
Urban
-.329
.051
.000*
Rural
Urban
-.222
.068
.003*
Rural
Suburban
.106
.049
.079
Note. Results from the Chi-Square yielded significant differences among the three schools (p =
.000).
* Mean difference is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
School
(I) School (J) School
Table 17
Frequencies of responses when students were asked if they would use the SchoolTipline website
to anonymously report bullying incidents.
School
Responses
Urban
n = 58
Suburban
n = 307
Rural
n = 56
Yes
37.9%
67.4%
62.5%
No
62.1%
32.6%
37.5%
47
The ninth question asked, “Would you use this website to anonymously report bullying?”
Fifty-eight of the 70 respondents from the urban school answered this question. Of those 58
respondents, 22 responded with Yes, and 36 responded with No. Three hundred seven of the 419
respondents from the suburban school answered this question. Of those respondents, 207
responded with Yes, and 100 responded with No. Fifty-six of the 74 respondents from the rural
school answered this question. Of those 56 respondents, 35 responded with Yes, and 21
responded with No (see Table 17). Further analysis indicates there are statistically significant
differences in the responses among the three schools for this question. Post hoc comparisons
using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the number of respondents from the
urban school is significantly higher than the mean score for the number of respondents from the
suburban school and the rural school (p=0.002 and p=0.020, respectively) (see Table 18).
Table 18
Differences among the respondents of the three schools concerning if students would use the
SchoolTipline website to anonymously report bullying incidents.
Mean
Std. Error
P
Difference (I-J)
Urban
Rural
.246
.091
.020*
Urban
Suburban
.232
.068
.002*
Suburban Rural
.013
.069
.979
Suburban
Urban
-.232
.068
.002*
Rural
Urban
-.246
.091
.020*
Rural
Suburban
-.013
.069
.979
Note. Results from the Chi-Square yielded significant differences among the three schools (p =
.000).
* Mean difference is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
School
(I) School (J) School
The ninth question also contains an open-ended response option, which allowed the
respondent to explain why he/she would use the website to report bullying. Twelve respondents
from the urban school explained why they would use the website. Six domains were identified
from among the responses: It provides anonymity (25.0%); I feel safe using it (8.3%); it is
48
helpful/it works (50.0%); I would use it if it was serious (8.3%); it’s a cool website (8.3%); and
no further reason was given (16.6%). Similar domains were found among the 103 responses
from the suburban school: It provides anonymity (29.1%); I feel safe using it (18.2%); it is
helpful/it works (32.6%); it is easy to use (10.1%); bullying needs to stop (3.9%); I would use it if
it was serious (4.3%); and no further reason was given (5.9%). Of the 21 reasons from the rural
school respondents, five similar domains were identified: It provides anonymity (33.3%); I feel
safe using it (4.8%); it is helpful/it works (52.4%); it is easy to use (4.8%); and I would use it if it
was serious (4.8%).
Our study and results found these primary things: (a) over half of the students surveyed at
each of the three schools reported being either verbally or physically bullied in the last two
months; (b) bullying is more likely to occur in places and at times when there is less adult
supervision; (c) only about one-third of the students surveyed reported bullying to anyone, and
only about one-sixth reported to the school; and (d) there are significant differences among the
three schools in terms of bullying trends, reporting trends, and reporting preferences.
49
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to analyze the collected data for bullying trends, reporting
trends, and reporting preferences from an urban, suburban, and rural school, as well as to see if
were any significant differences among the three schools. It was found that about half of the
respondents reported being bullied, which often took place in areas and at times that have less
adult supervision; and that there were significant differences among the respondents’ results at
the three schools. These results are discussed in greater detail in this section, along with
limitations, future directions, and implications for practice.
Findings
The research issues explored in this study add to the previous research regarding
bullying, reporting trends and preferences regarding traditional and non-traditional methods, and
comparison analyses of urban, suburban, and rural schools. First, responses were analyzed to
identify bullying trends concerning the prevalence rates of verbal and physical bullying, as well
as where and when bullying occurs in the schools. Second, responses were analyzed to identify
who they report to when they either are the victims or bullying, or have seen someone else get
bullied. In addition, responses were analyzed to determine how students would prefer to report
bullying incidents using non-traditional methods. Lastly, each question was also analyzed to
determine where significant differences lie among the three schools, indicating the need for
further research in this area.
Bullying Trends. The first four questions were regarding how often students were
verbally and physically abused, as well as where and when the bullying occurred. The results
from the survey indicate that over half of the students surveyed at each school had been verbally
bullied in the last two months. Likewise, the results from the survey also indicate that a little
50
over a third of the students surveyed at the urban and suburban school were physically bullied,
while almost two-thirds of the students surveyed at the rural reported being physically bullied in
two months. Further analysis has shown that the rural school has significantly more verbal and
physical bullying than both the suburban and rural schools. Although there have been little to no
research comparing bullying trends based on geographic location, these results align with
previous research indicating that students at rural schools engage in more at-risk behaviors, such
as tobacco and alcohol use, and bringing a weapon to school (Atay & Spencer, 2002).
In regards to where the bullying occurs, all three schools reported that a majority of the
bullying occurred in the hallways. The results also indicate that much of the bullying occurred in
the classrooms and the lunchrooms. More students from the rural school also reported bullying
on the school bus and in the lunchroom than the suburban and urban schools. These results
corroborate earlier research which states that bullying often takes place in common areas where
school personnel claims less “ownership” (Olweus, 1993; Rapp-Paglicci et al., 2004).
Results from the survey indicated that students from the schools reported that much of the
bullying takes place after school, in between classes, and during lunch, consistent with research
stating that bullying often occurs when areas are highly frequented (Astor, Meyer, & Pitner,
2001). The results also showed that the students at the rural school reported more bullying
between classes than the suburban school.
Reporting Trends. Since many of the students experience or observe bullying in the
schools, part of the research looked at to whom the students reported these incidents. Two
questions related to reporting preferences. Responses to the question related to whom they
reported to when they were bullied indicated that of those that did report, only less than 15% of
the students at the three schools reported bullying to the school when it happened, and about one-
51
third of the students surveyed at each school never reported the incidents to anyone. Further
analysis showed that more students at the rural school reported to a teacher than students at the
suburban school, and more students at the suburban and the urban schools reported that they did
not report because they were never bullied.
When the students were asked to whom they reported when they saw someone else get
bullied, the percentage of students who reported to the school rose from about 15% when
reporting their own incident of bullying to approximately 25% when reporting seeing someone
else get bullied. Once again, 20-30% of the students at each school never reported the incidents
to anyone. Further analysis also showed that more students at the rural school reported to a
teacher than the students at the suburban or urban school. These percentages of non-reporting
corroborate preview research (Batsche & Knoff, 1993; Oliver, 1994).
Reporting Preferences. When asked if the students would report if it were anonymous,
the percentages of students who stated that they would report varied from about 50% to almost
70%, with the rural school responding with the highest prevalence of reporting, although there
were no significant differences among the three schools. When comparing non-traditional
methods of reporting, the urban school did not have a clear preference between the website and a
hot line, although the suburban and rural schools clearly preferred a website to a hot line to
report incidents of bullying.
Likewise, only about 1/3 of the students at the urban school stated that they would use the
website, whereas about 2/3 the student at the suburban and rural schools stated that they would
use the website to anonymously report bullying. The most prevalent reasons students gave for
using the website include a feeling of anonymity and safety, as well as believing it may be
effective in stopping bullying and providing consequences for those who do bully. Even though
52
there is not a lot of previous research to compare the use of non-traditional methods of reporting,
these results indicate that these methods promote reporting of bullying incidents because students
believe that the website overcomes many of the identified barriers to reporting (Batsche &
Knoff, 1993; Unnever & Cornell, 2004; Stone & Isaacs, 2002).
Limitations
Although some differences were found among the three schools in terms of bullying
trends and reporting preferences, there are a few limitations which may affect the validity of
these findings. One limitation was that the questions addressing where/when bullying occurred,
and who they reported to were check all that apply. Since the students could not respond by
clicking Yes or No for each variable, a checked option was coded as Yes, and the absence of a
checked option was coded as No, when coding the responses into SPSS. This may be a
limitation because a student may have left a box unchecked because of skipping the question, or
checking the box twice. One way to minimize this possible error would be to require the student
to answer either Yes or No for each option.
Another limitation is the convenient sample of the three schools. Incentives to participate
in the study were provided by the schools. The rural and urban schools offered a piece of candy
to participate, whereas the suburban school used the survey as either an English assignment or
extra credit. The difference of the incentives led to a difference in sample size, as well as a
possible difference in the demographics of the school populations. Despite this difference, the
sample sizes were still considered robust enough to analyze the data.
Although a lot of research has been done on the topic of bullying, minimal research has
been conducted on comparing trends among urban, suburban, and rural schools; and very little
research has been done comparing bullying trends and reporting preferences among the three
53
schools. Again, the intent of this study was to explore what differences, if any, exist between
one urban, suburban, and rural school. Due to the relatively low sample size of students and
schools, it is difficult to determine with certainty that these differences are due to the geographic
location, and not to other circumstances unique to those schools. These results may be supported
through further research to determine if the results are generalizable.
Future Directions
Several improvements to this study should be made if future researchers would like to
expound on this study through replication or adaptation. Using the existing data, this study only
focused on the survey questions directly related to the research questions. Data analysis was not
conducted on the questions related to what stopped a student from reporting. As the literature
has shown, identifying and addressing the barriers of student reporting is necessary to increase a
student’s likelihood of reporting, and thereby, increasing the amount of reporting of past and
future incidents of bullying.
This study was exploratory in nature because of the lack of research that had been done
comparing bullying trends and reporting preferences based on geography (i.e. urban, suburban,
rural). These geographic areas were only represented by one school each, limiting its
generalizability. Another factor that limited the generalizability was the differences in incentives
for participants. Further research may consider using a larger sample size from several schools
to represent each geographic locale, as well as providing a uniform incentive to rule out possible
extraneous factors.
While this study targeted middle school and junior students from 7th and 8th grades,
further research may also want to compare these responses and trends with students of different
populations, such as elementary schools or high schools. Further research may also be
54
conducted with the existing data to determine if there were any significant differences of the
responses based on gender, grade, or ethnicity. Another area that could be explored is the
different kinds of bullying, such as cyber bullying, and homophobic bullying.
Since the use of a website to anonymously report incident of bullying and to collect
information via surveys are meant to increase communication between administration and
students, as well as the amount of reporting, it may be beneficial to do a follow-up study on one
or more of these schools to determine if this website has been effective in completing one or both
of these goals. Other studies may also have the students take a school climate survey to see if
use of this website improves the school climate over time. This may be beneficial since
improving school climate has been viewed as a common factor for effective anti-bullying
programs (Perone, 1998).
Implications for Practice
The results of this exploratory study provide some insight into what things to keep in
mind when creating/implementing programs to combat bullying in a middle school or junior high
school. As mentioned before, there is quite a lot of information on traditional methods of
reporting bullying, but not as much research on non-traditional methods. Likewise, there is a
plethora of studies on the effects of bullying and bullying trends in the secondary school setting,
but very little research comparing these trends based on geographic locale (urban, suburban, or
rural). This study supports previous research which states that this is a variable that has an
impact on the schools, creating definite changes among them, and which should be addressed
(Lorion, 1998; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993).
Research has shown that negative short-term and long-term effects of bullying can
negatively impact a student’s willingness to attend school and participate in activities, as well as
55
putting that student at higher risk for many mental health and behavior problems. Since bullying
negatively impacts so many students, especially in the middle schools and junior high schools, it
is not a surprise that so much time and effort is used to combat this problem. Therefore, it is
important to identify and overcome students’ perceived barriers when implementing antibullying programs, in order to increase student buy-in. Some of the biggest barriers include a
fear of retaliation if they reported, and the feeling that the administration won’t do anything to
intervene (Batsche & Knoff, 1993; Oliver 1994).
We live in a world where technology, such as cell phones and the internet, are common
uses of communication, yet many schools do not take advantage of these forms to increase
communication in their schools. The minimal research that has been done on these nontraditional methods of reporting bullying incidents indicate that providing a phone hotline or
texting service may provide a certain degree of anonymity and increased availability, but may
still be limited, due to the resources needed on the administration’s side to read the reports and
respond.
SchoolTipline was chosen for this study because of the features it provides on its website
to overcome these students’ perceived barriers. It allows the students to report incidents of
bullying to the school from any computer, 24 hours a day, keep track of the status of the report,
and provides anonymous two-way communication between the student and administrator. In
addition, the website also allows the administration to create surveys or use provided surveys to
help them learn from the students what is happening in the school and what issues the students
feel is important to address. This feature was intended to increase communication and help the
administration know what is going on with the school, as well as encourage the students to take
56
ownership of their school. The focus group at Dixon Middle School indicated that the students
perceived this website as a convenient and effective way of reporting incidents of bullying.
Likewise, the results of this study indicates that the students surveyed at the urban,
suburban, and rural schools would be likely to use this website to report bullying because they
felt this website provides anonymity and safety, and is perceived as a way to combat bullying
and let the administrators know what is going on in the school. It is also important to know that
not everyone preferred the website to report incidents. About an equal number of surveyed
students at the urban school preferred a phone call/hotline to using the website. If students do
not own a computer or have the internet at home, they may not view the website as a convenient
way of reporting.
Perceived effectiveness does not always mean actual effectiveness. It is important to note
that the website should not be the sole method used to combat bullying, but rather as a method of
increasing the effectiveness of an implemented anti-bullying program. In addition, both the
students and the faculty should be made aware of and trained on how to effectively report and
respond to reports of bullying incidents, as well as when a report is warranted. Students should
also be given opportunities and access to computers in order to report.
There are additional differences among the three schools in terms of bullying trends and
reporting preferences. Students at the rural school reported more bullying within the two months
prior to the survey, and although there were many shared locations and times in which the
bullying occurred, there were still significant differences. These significant differences indicate
that programs that are effective for a suburban school may not be effective in a rural school.
Therefore, it is important for the administration to determine when and where to increase
supervision and implement other strategies to combat bullying. These differences also indicate
57
that more research is needed to determine if these differences lie just among these three schools,
or if there are actual differences among urban, suburban, and rural schools.
Conclusion
In review, bullying is an issue that is prevalent in schools, especially in the middle
schools and junior high schools. Bullying has many short-term and long-term negative effects
for the bully, target, and school in general (Nansel et al., 2004). One of the biggest barriers to
combating bullying is that the administrators don’t know where and when it is happening or
going to happen, and the students who do know are not reporting it (O’Moore & Minton, 2005).
Many traditional methods of reporting, consisting or verbal or written reports, have not been
effective in helping the administration become aware of bullying incidents and intervening. In
fact, many students choose not to report bullying incidents, or only report to family and friends
instead of school personnel. Some schools are looking into non-traditional methods of reporting,
although more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of these methods.
Although much research has been done on bullying trends and reporting preferences,
very little research has been done on comparing schools based on geographic locales (urban,
suburban, and rural). This has important implications for the generalizability of the effectiveness
of anti-bullying programs, as well as the generalizability of bullying studies aimed at one
demographic. The results of this study indicate while the bullying trends of prevalence rates and
when/where bullying is occurring support many of the previous studies, there are also significant
differences among the three schools in terms of bullying trends and reporting preferences. This
study, however, is exploratory in nature, and the results should be viewed with caution, due to
the small number of schools who participated. This study does support previous research that
geographic locale is an important variable that should be further researched.
58
References
Astor, R.A., Meyer, H.A., & Pitner, R.O. (2001). Elementary and middle school students’
perceptions of violence-prone school subcontexts. The Elementary School Journal,
101(5), 511-528. doi:10.1086/499685
Atav, S. & Spencer, G.A. (2002). Health risk behaviors among adolescents attending rural,
suburban, and urban schools: A comparative study. Family Community Health, 25(2), 5364.
Bachus, G. (1994). Violence is no longer strange in rural schools. School Administrator, 51,
18-22.
Barras, B. & Lyman, S.A. (2000). Silence of the lambs: How can we get students to report
pending violence? Education 120(3), 495-502.
Batsche, G.M. & Knoff, H.M. (1994). Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive
problem in the schools. School Psychology Review, 23(2), 165-174.
Bergman, L. (1992). Dating violence among high school students. Social Work 37, 21-7.
Burger, T. (2007). Teasing, bullying, and sexual harassment: Middle school students’ view of
these problems. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3254827).
Carney, A.G., & Merrill, K.W. (2001). Bullying in schools: Perspectives on understanding and
preventing an international problem. School Psychology International 22(3), 364382. doi:10.1177/0143034301223011
Clubb, P.A., Browne, D.C., Humphrey, A.D., Shoenbach, V., Meyer, B., Jackson M., & RSVPP
Steering Committee. (2001). Violent behavior in early adolescent minority youth:
Results from a “Middle School Youth Risk Behavior Survey.” Maternal and Child
Health Journal, 5, 225-235. doi:10.1023/A:1013076721400
59
DeVoe, J.F. & Kaffenberger, S. (2005). Student reports of bullying: Results from the 2001
school crime supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCES 2005–310).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Dulmus, C.N., Theriot, M.T., Sowers, K.M., & Blackburn, J.A. (2004). Student reports of peer
bullying victimization in a rural school. Stress, Trauma, and Crisis, 7, 1-16.
doi:10.1080/15434610490281093
Engert, P.A. (2002). Self-perceptions of bullies, victims, and other participants in bullying and
victimization interactions of middle school students. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital
Dissertations. (AAT 3046365).
Esposito, L.E. (2007). The role of empathy, anger management and normative beliefs about
aggression in bullying among urban, African-American middle school children.
Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3288686).
Estell, D.B., Farmer, T.W., & Cairns, B.D. (2007). Bullies and victims in rural AfricanAmerican youth: Behavioral characteristics and social network placement. Aggressive
Behavior, 33 (145-159). doi:10.1002/ab.20176
Fleschler Peskin, M., Tortolero, S.R., & Markham, C.M. (2006). Bullying and victimization
among black and Hispanic adolescents. Adolescence 41(163), 467-484.
Hawkins, S.R., Campanero, A., Bice Pitts, T., & Steiner, H. (2002). Weapons in an affluent
suburban school. Journal of School Violence, 1(1), 53-65. doi:10.1300/J202v01n01_04
Hess, L.E. & Atkins, M.S. (1998). Victims and aggressors at school: Teacher, self, and peer
perceptions of psychosocial functioning. Applied Developmental Science, 2(2), 75-89.
doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0202_2
60
Hunt, M.H. (2002). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the student survey of
bullying behavior. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3056378).
Juvonen, J., Graham, S. & Schuster, M. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The strong,
the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231-1237. doi:10.1542/peds.112.6.1231
Juvonen J. and Graham, S. (2004). Research-based interventions on bullying. In C.E. Sanders
& G.D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 229–255). San Diego:
Elsevier Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012617955-2/50016-3
Kilpatrick Demaray, M. & Kerres Malecki, C. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and
importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims
in as urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 471-489.
Kitsantas, A., Ware, H., & Martinez-Arias, R. (2004, November). Students' perceptions of
school safety: Effects by community, school environment, and substance use variables.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(4), 412-430. doi:10.1177/0272431604268712
Lampert, J.B. (1998). Visions and voices: Adolescent girls’ experiences as bullies, targets, and
bystanders. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAM 9805181).
Laub, J.H. & Lauritsen, J.L. (1998). The interdependence of school violence with neighborhood
and family conditions. In D.S. Elliott, B.A. Hamburg, & K.R. Williams (Eds.), Violence
in American schools: A new perspective (pp. 127-155). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Lorion, R.P. (1998). Exposure to urban violence: Contamination of the school environment. In
D.S. Elliott, B.A. Hamburg, & K.R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American schools: A
new perspective (pp. 293-311). New York: Cambridge University Press.
61
Marczak, M. & Sewell, M. (n.d.). Using focus groups for evaluation. Retrieved from
http://ag.arizona.edu/fcs/cyfernet/cyfar/focus.htm
Nansel, T.R., Craig, W., Overpeck, M.D., Saluja, G., & Ruan, W.J. (2004). Cross-national
consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors & psychosocial adjustment.
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158(8), 730-736.
doi:10.1001/archpedo.158.8.730
Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial
adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16), 2094-2100.
doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). (n.d.). ChildLine home.
Retrieved from: http://www.childline.org.uk/
Neft, D.I. (2006). Social and emotional profiles of bullies and victims: Implications for schoolbased prevention programs. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT
3240252).
North Sanpete Middle School. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nsm.nsanpete.k12.ut.us/
Ogden City: Welcome to Ogden City. (n.d.). Community profile. Retrieved from
http://www.ogdencity.com/index.php?module=ibcms&fxn=about.community
Oliver, R.L., Oaks, I.N., & Hoover, J.H. (1994). Family issues and interventions in bully and
victim relationships. School Counselor, 41(3), 199-202.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell Publishers.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. (1999). Blueprints for violence prevention: Book nine – Bullying
62
prevention program. Boulder, CO; Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado, Boulder.
O’Moore, A.M., & Minton, S.J. (2005). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an antibullying program in primary schools. Aggressive Behavior 31, 609-622.
doi:10.1002/ab.20098
Onboard Informatics. (2008). Stats about all US Cities. Retrieved from http://www.citydata.com/
Perone, D. (1998, December). The relationship between school climate and school safety:
Perceptions of urban middle school students and teachers. Retrieved from PsycINFO
database.
Quiroz, H.C., Arnette, J.L., & Stephens, R.D. (2006). Bullying in schools: Fighting the bullying
battle. Retrieved from http://www.schoolsafety.us/pubfiles/bullying_fact_sheets.pdf
Rapp-Paglicci, L., Dulmus, C.N., Sowers, K.M., & Theriot, M.T. (2004). “Hotspots” for
bullying: Exploring the role of environment in school violence. In C.N. Dulmus & K.M.
Sowers (Eds.), Kids and violence: The invisible school experience (pp. 131-141). New
York: Haworth Social Work Practice Press.
Reuter-Rice, K.E. (2006). Psychosocial responses by adolescent male victims to peer bullying.
Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3218204).
Roecker Phelps, C.E. (2001). Children’s responses to overt and relational aggression. Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(1), 240-252.
Sacco, K.A. (2002). Social schematic implications for adolescents exposed to school violence.
Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3061471).
Sarason, S.B. (1996). Revisiting “the culture of the schools and the problem of change.” New
63
York: Teachers College Press.
SchoolSpan, Inc. (n.d.). SchoolSpan. Retrieved from http://www.schoolspan.com
Spencer, G.A., & Bryant, S.A. (2000). Dating violence: A comparison of rural, suburban, and
urban teens. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 302-305. doi:10.1016/S1054139X(00)00125-7
Stockdale, M.S., Hangaduambo, S., Duys, D., Larson, K. & Sarvela, P.D. (2002). Rural
elementary students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of bullying. American Journal
of Health Behavior, 26(4), 266-277.
Stone, C. & Issacs, M.L. (2002). Involving students in violence prevention: Anonymous
reporting and the need to promote and protect confidences. National Association of
Secondary School Principals Bulletin. 86, 633, 54-65.
doi:10.1177/019263650208663305
Stoudt, B.G. (2006). “You’re either in our you’re out”: School violence, peer discipline, and the
(re)production of hegemonic masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 8, 273-287.
doi:10.1177/1097184X05282070
Teddlie, C. & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a 10year study of school effects. New York: Teachers College Press.
Tempus Software Ltd. (n.d.). Welcome to Bullytext.com. Retrieved from http://bullytext.com/
United States House of Representatives. (n.d.). 2005 Nadler introduces bill to combat school
bullying. Retrieved from
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny08_nadler/BullyingBill091605.html
United States Department of Education. (2007). Digest of Education Statistics 2006 Appendix B
– Definitions. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/app_b.asp#l
64
United States Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (IES). (n.d.). Search for
public schools. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/
United States Department of Education. (1996). Urban schools: The challenge of location and
poverty. (NCES Publication 96-184). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Unnever, J.D. & Cornell, D.G. (2004). Middle school victims of bullying: Who reports being
bullied? Aggressive Behavior, 30, 373-388. doi:10.1002/ab.20030
Weist, M.D., Myers, C.P., Danforth, J., & McNeil, D.W. (2000). Expanded school mental
health services: Assessing needs related to school level and geography. Community
Mental Health Journal, 36(3), 259-273.
65
Appendix A: Geographic Definitions
Definitions taken from United States Department of Education, 2007, Local codes section, para.
11-16, 20-22.
Distant rural area: “census-defined rural territory that is more than 5 miles but less than or
equal to 25 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5 miles
but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban cluster.”
Fringe rural area: “census-defined rural territory that is less than or equal to 5 miles from an
urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from an urban
cluster.”
Large city: “territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population of
250,000 or more.” Small suburb: “Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized
area with population less than 100,000.”
Large suburb: “Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population
of 250,000 or more.”
Midsize city: “territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population
less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000.”
Midsize suburb: “Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with
population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000.”
Remote rural area: “census-defined rural territory that is more than 25 miles from an
urbanized area and is also more than 10 miles from an urban cluster.”
Small city: “territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population less
than 100,000.”
66
Appendix B: Survey
Online Bullying Survey
1. At school, how often have YOU been teased, made fun of, taunted, gossiped about,
(verbally bullied) by the same person in the past two months?
Once
Two to three times
About a once a week
Several times a week
Never
2. At school, how often have YOU been kicked, hit, shoved, tripped, (physically bullied) by
the same person in the past two months?
Once
Two to three times
About once a week
Several times a week
Never
3. WHERE did these things (from questions 1 and 2) happen to YOU? (Select all that
apply)
school bus
classroom
bathroom
playground/football or other playing field
hallways
lunch room/cafeteria/commons
on the way home from school
never happened
4. WHEN did these things (from questions 1 and 2) happen to YOU? (select all that apply)
Before school
In between classes
During class
During lunch
After school
Never happened
67
5. When this happened to YOU, who did you report to? (select all that apply)
Parent
Friend/Student
Teacher
Office or Counselor
I did not report to anyone
Never happened
6. What stopped you from reporting bullying or other problems, when it happens to you?
(select all that apply)
Don’t feel comfortable telling someone
Fear of other students knowing you reported
To embarrassed to reveal the details
Did not know it required reporting
I reported
Other ______
7. Would you have reported if it was anonymous?
Yes
No
I reported
8. How would you prefer to report problems?
Anonymous website
Anonymous phone call/hot line
Other _______
9. Would you use this website to anonymously report bullying?
Yes
No
Why or why not? ________
10. Would you still use this website to anonymously report, if you had to login with a
username and password?
Yes
No
Why or why not? ________
68
11. When you have seen someone else get bullied, who did you report to? (select all that
apply)
Parent
Friend/Student
Teacher
Office or Counselor
I did not report to anyone
Never seen
12. What stopped you from reporting after seeing someone else get bullied? (select all that
apply)
Don’t feel comfortable telling someone
Fear of other students knowing you reported
To embarrassed to reveal the details
Did not know it required reporting
I reported
Other ______
13. What are the most important things schools can do to help stop bullying? (select all that
apply)
Making rules against bullying
Enforcing rules against bullying and punishing bullies
Teaching kids how to get along better
Supervising the playground and halls better
Have an anonymous website for reporting
Have an anonymous phone line for reporting
14. Gender
Male
Female
15. Grade
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
69
12th
16. Ethnicity
White/Caucasian
Hispanic
Asian
Pacific Islander
Native American or Alaskan Native
African American
Other ______
70
Appendix C: Survey in Spanish
Encuesta sobre Acoso en tu escuela
1. En tu escuela, que tan seguido se han burlado o han dicho rumores de ti (acoso verbal)
por la misma persona?
Una vez
Dos o tres veces
Una vez por semana
Muchas veces a la semana
Nunca
2. En tu escuela, que tan seguido te han pateado, pegado, empujado (acoso físico) por la
misma persona en los últimos dos meses?
Una vez
Dos o tres veces
Una vez por semana
Muchas veces a la semana
Nunca
3. DONDE occurrieron estos problemas (de las preguntas 1 y 2). Selecciona las opciones
que se aplican a tu respuesta.
Bus escolar
Salón de clases
Parque/ campo de football u otro lugar de juego
Estacionamiento (parqueador)
Baños
Pasillos
Cafeteria
En camino a mi casa
Nunca me ha ocurrido
4. CUANDO ocurrieron estos problemas (de las preguntas 1 y 2). Selecciona las opciones
que se aplican a tu respuesta.
Antes de la escuela
Entre medio de las clases
Durante las clases
Durante el almuerzo
Después de las escuela
Nunca me ha ocurrido
71
5. Cuando estos problemas te ocurrieron a ti, a quien le reportaste? (Selecciona las opciones
que se apliquen a tu respuesta)
A un amigo/otro estudiante
A un maestro(a)
A la oficina o a un consejero
No le reporte a nadie
Nunca me ha ocurrido
6. Después que te acosaron, que fue lo que te paro de reportar a alguien el problema?
(Selecciona las opciones que se apliquen a tu respuesta)
No me sentí cómoda(a) de decirle a alguien
Miedo o temor de que otros estudiantes supieran que reportaste
Me dio verguenza de mencionar los detalles del problema
No sabía que había que reportar
Si reporte el problema
Otro ______
7. Si el reporte hubiese sido anónimo, lo hubieses reportado?
Si
No
Lo reporte
8. Como preferirías reportar problemas que ocurren en tu escuela?
Página web anónima
Linea telefónica anónima
Otro _______
9. Usarías esta pagina web para reportar de forma anónima que has sido acosado?
Si
No
Porque o porque no? ________
10. Usarías esta página web para reportar de forma anónima si tuvieras una identificación de
Registro (login) y una contraseña?
Si
No
Porque o porque no? ________
72
11. Cuando has visto a otra persona ser acosado(a), a quien le reportaste? (Selecciona las
opciones que se apliquen)
A un padre/madre
A un amigo(a)/estudiante
A una maestro(a)
A la oficina o Consejero escolarOfficr
No le reporte el problema a nadie
No he visto a otra pesona ser acosado(a)
12. Que te paro de haber reportado despues de haber visto a otra persona ser acosado?
(Selecciona las opciones que se apliquena tu respuesta)
No me sentí cómoda(a) de decirle a alguien
Miedo o temor de que otros estudiantes supieran que tu reportaste
Me dio verguenza mencionar los detalles del problema
No sabía que había que reportar
Si reporte el problema
Otro ______
13. Que consideras que es lo mas importante que puede hacer TU escuela para parar el
acoso? (Selecciona las opciones que se apliquen a tu respuesta)
Crear reglas en contra del acoso
Imponer reglas en contra del acoso y castigar a los acosadores
Enseñar a los estudiantes como llevarsela mejor
Supervisar mejor los pasillos y parques de la escuela
Tener una página web anónima para reportar
Tener una línea telefónica para reportar
14. Cual es tu sexo?
Masculino
Femenino
15. En que grado estás?
4to
5to
6to
7mo
8vo
9no
10mo
11
73
12
16. Cual es tu raza?
Anglo- Americano/ Blanco(a)
Hispano(a)
Asiatico(a)
Islas Pacíficas
Nativ Americano or Nativo de Alaska
Africano Americano(a)
Otro ______
74
Appendix D: Survey Instructions
Taking the Survey
1. Go to www.schooltipline.com
2. In the top right hand corner, you will see a box that says “Type to select a school.” Type
in __________ Junior High
3. Click on “continue”
4. Click on “Take a Survey” (2nd option)
5. Check and accept the “terms of use” by clicking both boxes in the yellow section at the
top of the page.
6. Click on “Safe Schools Survey”
7. Fill out the 16 question survey
8. Click on “Submit”
Thank you for your help !
75
Reliability Survey – DAY 1
1. Go to www.schooltipline.com
2. In the top right hand corner, you will see a box that says “Type to select a school.” Type in
_______________ Junior High
3. Click on “continue”
4. Click on “Take a comparative Survey” (3rd option)
5. It will come up with the prompt “is this your first time taking the survey”? Click on “YES”
6. Type in your first and last name.
7. Click on the double arrow button
8. Check and accept the “terms of use” by clicking the box in the yellow section at the top of the
page.
9. Click on “Safe Schools Survey”
10. Fill out the 16 question survey and then hit “Submit”
11. A screen will pop up with the Case ID. Don’t worry about saving the Case ID’s.
Thank you for your help !
Reliability Survey – DAY 2
1. Go to www.schooltipline.com
2. In the top right hand corner, you will see a box that says “Type to select a school.” Type in
_____________ Junior High
3. Click on “continue”
4. Click on “Take a comparative Survey” (3rd option)
5. It will come up with the prompt “is this your first time taking the survey”? Click on “NO”
6. Type in your CASE ID.
7. Click on the double arrow button
8. Check and accept the “terms of use” by clicking the box in the yellow section at the top of the
page.
9. Click on “Safe Schools Survey”
10. Fill out the 16 question survey and then hit “Submit”
11. A screen will pop up with the Case ID. Don’t worry about saving the Case ID’s.
Thank you for your help !